Hodson (2006) outlined comprehensive arguments to safeguard proprietary information that information specialists, such as archivists, may chose to digitize and therefore contribute to cyberspace. Such decisions about sharing such information rest with the archivist. As privacy is the claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine when, how and to what extent information about themselves is communicated, the disinterested party, such as archivist, are making potentially devastating decisions based on criteria that is not of interest to those individuals, groups or institutions. Hodson implores information specialists to stop and think before digitizing about privacy and security. The difference between one person at a time viewing the information and allowing perhaps millions access is vast.

Nelson (2009) outlined compelling arguments towards a ‘open cloud’ with open standards driving policy decision making to ensure cloud technology remains available to all and not controlled by a few giant companies intent on money making. He doesn’t deny the importance of security and privacy in such technology, but acknowledges the role that early adopters such as libraries and academic institutions played in fostering positive solutions with the internet, allowing it to remain open. Nelson suggests that policy framework standards for the cloud must allow for innovation and competition to allow the cloud to reach its full potential.

Information specialists must continue to develop policies that acknowledge that privacy and security issues remain important, especially in school environments. While they may control sensitive information,careful consideration needs to be made of others’ claim on privacy and security. This means that information specialists must work towards maintaining high standards of privacy and security whilst supporting the continued development of open technologies that allow all to use.